On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 09:12:43AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > ... > There were cases that were discussed when the feature went in that > required it to be removed in some failure modes for full functionality. > I don't recall if they were in the rc thread or somewhere else.
You mean, literally delete the file, that is, nextboot_enable="NO" can not be enough? > And honestly, nextboot.conf is special in so many ways. We have no > unlink in the loader for UFS and no write for ZFS or MSDOS. In those What's the problem with in-place overwrite in the FAT case? > cases, the rm from rc is what you want I still don't understand how could rm be better than graceful disabling alternative configuration with nextboot_enable="NO". I most certainly do *not* like when my custom config files are being removed, especially silently. When I see nextboot_enable="NO"<space> I know that the file had been processed, and processed by the machine, not me (since I would never add trailing space). When I don't see the file, I'd be questioning myself if I've ever added it here, or maybe I put in the wrong location. > I'm not likely to remove it, but if UFS grows unlink in the future, > this man page will need to change. Just because it's easier to implemented unlink for UFS then (over)write for ZFS? > Then again, all the loser [loader?] man pages need a complete rewrite, > or close to it. Personally I find them quite useful, except when they contradict the reality (like this time). In these cases, I'd fix them. ./danfe _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
